June 25

There are duplicate references in a discussion in Noah's Ark talk page, in the section, "Myth vs account or story controversy". How are they supposed to be cited? In articles the ref is given a name but I think that doesn't work in talk pages unless, most likely, I did something wrong. Thinker78 (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs on talk pages should ordinarily be forced into the section of the page the has the ref. This is done by adding {{
  reflist talk}} to the end of a section if that section has refs. Within a section, then, you consolidate refs using names, just as you would within an article. -Arch dude (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Could you show me with the repeated ref of Pewforum? I tried to refname last time and I wasn't able to in the talk page. Thinker78 (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. I edited the section for you. -Arch dude (talk) 04:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Marquisate of Villena)? If so, how? Thinker78 (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I do not think the technique to be used on talk pages is any different than in articles. There are multiple approaches. If a technique is already in use in the article, the editor should use it. Otherwise, the first editor is free to pick one. Presumably, one important reason to use references on a talk page is to make that reference available to incorporate into the article, so I think it's prudent to use the same technique on the talk page that is used in the article. See
  WP:REFPAGE. I like to use {{rp}}. -Arch dude (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonia Ezemonye (talk • contribs) 25 June 2018 10:03 (UTC)

@Anthonia Ezemonye: Please provide a link to a page where you are encountering difficulty. I cannot see an edit in your edit history to a related page. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_John%27s_School,_Leatherhead#Notable_Old_Johnians

The link to the Old Johnians on here is incorrect (it links to the notable former pupils of a different school). The category link is correct. How do I remove the incorrect link without removing the whole section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SJS1851 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SJS1851: Can you clarify please? The link to Old Johnians goes to List of people educated at St John's School, Leatherhead. Is there a problem with an individual entry (or multiple entries)? Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The names on that page are actually the former pupils of Hurstpierpoint College (the confusion seems to be because former pupils of both schools are called 'Old Johnians'). The sane list and information is correctly presented on their page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Johnians_(Hurstpierpoint_College)

The page has been incorrectly linked and attributed to St John's School, Leatherhead.

SJS1851 (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed I changed the link in the Leatherhead one to point directly to the correct article. Also created a disambiguation page at Old Johnians to cater for both using the same term but being different places. No doubt there will be other places that have Old Johnians too in the future. - X201 (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There still seems to remain, the problem of
  WP:AfD with a suitable explanation? Eagleash (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

only makes sense

for it to apply to initial postings instead of later revisions, otherwise autopatrolled would be identical to autoconfirmed.

Looking over the past several articles you cranked out in the past month, your initial postings mostly look like what would result from my usual advice on how to write articles (though my advice is overly strict on primary sources links to counter new users' tendency to cite only those if anything, but that doesn't seem to be a problem for you). I'm almost inclined to throw the autopatrolled right at you based on those. However:

• I am a little concerned about the Youtube links. I totally get their relevance and I'm assuming that 90 year old cartoons from collapsed animation studios are public domain but something at least on the talk page (if not a sourced line in the article) proving that there's no longer any copyright would prevent any potential disputes.
• While you have learned a lot since you first started, some of your earliest articles (such as LA Law: The Computer Game) were abandoned in an unsatisfactory state. Some of them (like Loadstar: The Legend of Tully Bodine) were improved to a "good enough" point -- but mostly thanks to other editors saving the article. You don't need to go back and fix those, I wouldn't count them against you, but I just wouldn't count them toward the number of satisfactory articles you've made (0 points rather than -1). Your drafts are generally in a similar state.

I'll leave your contributions page open in another tab (did anyone else just hear my browser scream?) and check in when I can. If I keep seeing improvement continued improvement in your initial postings, I don't see why we'd have to wait for the full 25. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fenchol

In the fenchol page, is reported that some Aster species and Basil as plant containing the terpene in question.

I added the Cannabis plant, because in some selected sub-species, the scent of Basil is dominant and you can clearly recognize the "basil smell and taste". In the reference i added it was reported a sample were the quantity of the terpene was not dominant (enough to PROVE it is one of the many terpenes the plant produces), but simply one of the many compounds produced.

So is WRONG to add all the know plants that contains the terpene in the page itself? Should be limited to main components? How to act with human selected sub-species were some terpenes are indeed making up for the main "bouquet" and the terpene profile is very different from the mother specie?

My editing was ideologically wrong or what is the meter of measure here?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jekomac (talk • contribs) 16:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources

.

Now please

assume good faith from other users. That's one of the foundational site policies. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I was going through articles in attempts to fix Lint errors. I came across Beautiful Mess (Kristian Kostov song) in the list, and it had the same problem I had seen with numerous other articles using "Infobox: single" - it had curly braces in the wrong position, causing the Eurovision entry to be inside it, resulting in a nested table (a high priority Lint error).

While I fixed this issue, it resulted in a side effect I don't know how to approach. The article contains an image in the Eurovision Song Content section of Kristian Kostov performing the song... however, ever since my change, this image hasn't been appearing the right location. The way it displays for me, this also results in one of the tables on the track listing being shoved behind the infoboxes.

My confusion only gets worse if I decide to look at the page via the migration tool - if I do so, the image is in yet another position (that's also incorrect).

Is there anything I can do to make space for the image, or force the image to remain in its assigned section? Wsan2 (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wsan2: The left-floating image can stay in place by using {{stack begin}} and {{stack end}} around consecutive right-floating elements.[1] But you are not using the best method to fix the lint error in this case. I used Template:Infobox song contest entry#Embedding instead.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The photo currently posted is not LeBorg, it is Forrest Ackerman. This photo should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regihom (talk • contribs) 23:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Regihom: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Orangemike took care of it, removing the photo (and even deleting it from the servers altogether, since it was a hoax). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]